Many people are familiar with the right wing rhetoric that suspending the tax cuts on the rich and taxing multi-national corporations is somehow “punishing hard work and success.” Glorifying trickle-down economics has been a favorite go-to argument of the Republican Party, but like many partisan arguments, it falls apart as soon as you begin to scrutinize the numbers.

Let’s take a look at the current tax brackets that exist now – many of you might not be aware of them. These are the brackets if you are married and filing jointly.

0 to $17,850 10%

$17,850 to $72,500 15%

$72,500 to $146,400 25%

$146,400 to $223,050 28%

$223,050 to $398,350 33%

$398,350 to $450,000 35%

$450,000 and above 39.6%

So what’s wrong with this picture?

Let’s start with the fact that the biggest jump in percentages happens at 72,000-146,400. Keep in mind that this is really the tax rate of two people in a household, the lower middle class. One look at that and it is no question that this is one of the main reasons that the United States has dropped to the bottom in terms of social mobility out of all developing nations. This is the bracket in which people could maybe own a home and send their kids to college if they are entirely frugal about their income and they suffer the largest increase in the bracket, 200% larger than the second largest bump. The chances that you could make enough to make up for the additional 10% you’ll lose in taxes are so negligible that you would wind up actually making less money if you made just a little more. So struggling to make a little more is actually discouraged.

Next, consider the fact that the tax brackets end at $450,000. To you and me that may sound like a lot but the average CEO makes $727,004 – just short of double the top bracket. Keep in mind this includes small corporations that couldn’t actually afford to pay their CEO’s anywhere near that and also that stock options are not factored in this sum. Ironically this is the class of people who actually have the power to give themselves massive bonuses and make giant financial leaps – people like AIG Exectuive Joseph Cassano AIG, who received $1.5 billion in bonuses and awards after the TARP bailout.

In conclusion, what we find is the biggest gap in our bracket system comes right at the point in which people could begin to save money, buy homes, and pay for their children’s college. However the gap between the well-off and the super-rich isn’t even represented. The people who cannot afford a big tax hike get one and the people who can afford multiple houses, super cars, Ivy league colleges for their children, etc., don’t get a tax increase at all. This doesn’t even factor in capital gains versus overtime taxes, something we’ll get into next time.

Joey, a former member of Occupy Orange County AND a former contributor to Bushala’s Friends For Fullerton’s Future blog, will be continuing this series over the upcoming days…

About Joey

68 Comments

Thanks Joey…I look forward to your other parts in the series. I especially look forward to learning what overtime taxes are….as I have not heard of it. I presume it is a term of art to related to payroll taxes.

I am not sure that I agree with you that a married couple who makes $92K is lower middle class, but that is debating definitions I suppose…I feel that lower middle class is probably lower in income level than your entry point.

“The chances that you could make enough to make up for the additional 10% you’ll lose in taxes are so negligible that you would wind up actually making less money if you made just a little more.” Can you explain this to me mathematically? Either I am not reading your statement correctly (hopefully the case) or something is askew. You will always put money in your pocket if you make more, so I am not seeing how you “wind up actually making less money if you made just a little more”. My tax sensor is beeping…

10% is a rather large percentage. Most people in that income bracket don’t get raises that large. Even if you got a raise that gave you 15% more income, if it came at the cost of a much higher workload and responsibility and in reality you were only earning 5% more, why would you cross that bracket threshold?

Mainly because you are not understanding how marginal tax brackets work- unfortunately, you are not alone in your thought process which is harmful. You are implying that a 15% raise is reduced to only 5%…incorrect. See below comment at 7:01am.

I see what you are saying now. You are correct but I still would make the case that the larger increases should come at higher thresh holds. It is harmful and when I conclude the series I plan to write an article solely explaining that because I believe most people misunderstand the bracket system.

Boutwell

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Joey…thank you for your admission. You should be able to easily update your above original article to avoid confusion in the future- just use UPDATE or CORRECTION, so the comments don’t lose their relevance. I give you permission to use my figures if you would like.

Yes, this is very very confusing and a lot of people do not understand the marginal tax bracket system.

Ryan, yes adding the SS and Med provides a bigger picture to the entire deal. Might as well add in CA income tax and SDI along with the healthcare surcharges now too. And the Alternative Minimum Tax and income phaseouts of deductions and credits too…now I remember why I am so thankful for computers.

Joey

Posted March 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Of course Boutwell, I appreciate your information. I still believe in some of the points I made, I just defended them incorrectly. The truth is I have never learned much from being right. I look forward to your comments on future posts.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Joey…awesome comment! “The truth is I have never learned much from being right.” Is that yours or someone else’s? Love it and will probably use it in the future.

anon

Posted March 29, 2013 at 1:30 PM

You get your money when you retire. Period. Administered by the SS Administration. You don’t need access to the lockbox.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t share your degree of skepticism with regard to the government’s ability to do anything right. With more people like you, we’re well on our way to a government that will perform to our lowest expectations.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Anon…see below comment…either I have been starring at too many tax returns and am seeing double or the location of your comment moved. Creepy.

I won’t speak for Ryan, but I think he is making the point that once you hit the Soc Sec wage limit the high income earners drop out from paying Soc Sec OR if they are investment earners instead of wage earners, it is even worse. Now obviously in 2013, we have to account for the healthcare surcharges which helps correct it a bit.

So, when you add in the other taxes into the bracket you will likely feel even stronger in your thoughts…

anon

Posted March 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

It’s time to raise that cap on SS taxable income, right? I mean, c’mon, we want more money coming in to the program in order to sustain it for future generations, right. Bring more money in, put it in a “lockbox” and let’s move on.

AND there are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before in American history, aren’t there? Even Boutwell can’t sing the sad song of THEIR suffering… 🙂

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Anon…I personally feel that the SS tax is “just another tax”. It is not in a lockbox and so I and many others who are unsure as to whether it will be there when we are eligible for it, don’t look at it that way. I am not just concerned about the ability to sustain future generations but also our existing generations…ask a young person if they think that the promised SS will be there for them in 30 years and a lot of them will feel the same. Since I look at it is as almost more general fund type tax, I also look at the big picture…both revenue and spending cuts. We need both.

Vern…I hope, and you should also, that there are more M’s and B’s every year! Those measures are stagnant reference points and so as there is growth, the absolute # of M’s and B’s should increase (i.e. time value of money, inflation, etc…). I would be very concerned, and so should you, if there were the same number of M’s and B’s in 2013 as there was in 1963 especially since a million is not what it used to be. BTW, remember that net worth (i.e. Millionaire) is not tied to income tax or even SS/Medicare. There are plenty of folks who make $90K per year (I just picked that number) who have $1MM+ net worth…start early, save more than everyone says you should, spend less than you can, and look what 30 years can do to someone’s net worth.

anon

Posted March 29, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Raising the SS cap on taxable income does NOT have to happen in conjunction with other actions. It can be done on it’s own. Linking it with spending cuts is simply a mechanism for avoiding action.

There’s no lockbox? Then create one! Good grief.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 12:39 PM

The SS limit is raised every year and is not tied to spending. I am open to raising it without spending cuts, but would rather see a big picture solution take place. For example, I would hate for the tax to be raised and then simply spent away…that does not solve the problem.

I don’t think that there will ever be a lock box…if there was, I would rather it be “my” lockbox. Essentially, I know that say 50% (pick a #, it is obviously not 100%) of the amount I pay into SS will be there for me, plus growth, when I retire for me or when I die for my heirs. Essentially, it is just a gov’t run defined contribution plan. The other 50% would be to help others sustain a minimum level of benefits and for disability. If we want to use a lock box, then use a lock box…I am fine with it, but let me at least have access to the key, or something like that. I don’t think it is so unreasonable. I honestly don’t think that will ever happen, which is why I just look as it practically as just another tax.

anon

Posted March 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM

You don’t need access to a freakin’ lockbox. The lockbox is to keep the politician’s hands off the money. Don’t worry, you’ll get your well-earned benefits when you retire.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Yeah, let me go ask around how many people think that they will get their benefits- maybe we run with a different crowd. What is wrong with me having a key to my lockbox? I don’t mind contributing to others’ either which is why I acknowledge that I don’t expect to have it be a direct defined contribution plan, but I think that I should have some access and control over it. I mean it is my future and all…someone has to have a key. If it is not me and it is not politicians, I guess that means it is, ummm, well, maybe anon?

anon

Posted March 29, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Ever heard of the Social Security Administration? That’s who has the key to the lockbox. The administrator of benefits.

Duh.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Yeah, and they do such a great job making sure that it is safe and sound for everyone. I must apologize though, my brain was processing politicians as “government” which is obviously not the same. I still say that a lot of people will not get the benefits that they think they earned. Regardless, what is wrong with someone who wants to have a key to their own box having one?

Ryan Cantor

Posted March 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM

I hereby grant you authority to speak for me at any time.

In fact, we’d probably all be better off if you did on a regular basis.

Boutwell

Posted March 29, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Anon…Despite your thoughts about me, I do believe that the gov’t can do and does great things. I am proud that we have a great government. I feel that when it comes to some items, we can do it better.

I don’t want access to my lockbox to pull money out (make it impossible to do, that is fine), but i do think that I certainly should have access to be able to make some choices about how the money is invested as well as know that the money that I think is there, truly is there- otherwise, it is just general fund money (which is what I think of it now). Not so difficult..I am fine with helping others with their box also, I don’t expect every dollar that I put in the system to be traceable into the future for me and my family , but I certainly would like to have some control over it. It does not seem that the gov’t has done a great job of being a steward of that money. I know that it is a novel concept for someone to actually want to at least be in the passenger seat to watch the drive and provide instruction when it comes to things types of decisions.

With more people like me, we would be well on our way for people to take personal responsibility for their own actions, a desire to take care of others, the means to do so, and a very bright future.

When a couple is making 72k neither of them is likely to get a raise that boosts their total income very much higher than 10%. Let’s say that by accepting a much higher workload and responsibility they can get 15%, in reality they end up working much harder for just 5% more. Meanwhile many CEO’s of large corporations give themselves million dollar bonuses arbitrarily after doing such a bad job that they didn’t just endanger their corporations but our entire economy on a global scale. That is not Capitalism, it’s corporate socialism.

Joey, I don’t believe you are understanding how marginal tax rates work. When you bump up a bracket, only your next dollar is taxed at that higher rate. I will provide an example for you using your 15% raise scenario:

Married couple, no kids, makes $92,500 of wages in 2013 and do not itemize their deductions. This is all Federal Income Tax (FIT) only just to clarify. They are at the very highest level of the 15% tax bracket- none of their. If they were blessed enough to increase their income by 15%, they would now be making $106,375 and all of their raise of $13,875 would be taxed at 25%. They would pay an additional $3,468 on that $13,875 of FIT. In total FIT, pre-raise they would pay $9,983 of tax while post-raise they would pay $13,451 of tax (the difference being the $3,468 incremental tax).

So when you say that if someone works harder for just 5% more you are totally off base. You are implying that if someone at this income level earns a 15% raise that well over half of their raise goes to FIT (i.e. “in reality they end up working much harder for just 5% more”). Unfortunately, your understanding of taxes is not all that unusual, but still wrong. When someone bumps up a bracket, they only pay the higher rate on the next dollar earned. Therefore, when someone goes up from the 15% to 25% tax bracket, they will pay 10% more tax on their raise than they would on their prior income.

I think that most people would be thrilled with a raise of 15%. Not that it is what you were referring to, but our hypothetical married/no kid couple would take home approximately 60% of their raise money after all taxes (FIT, state income tax, Sos Sec, Medicare, SDI). So, our couple who gets a $13,875 raise would stick in their pocket approximately $8,100. This is a long throw away from your example where you have that 15% raise ($13,875) getting dwindled down to 5% more ($4,625).

Hopefully this makes sense…I am more than happy to expand if needed. I look forward to your response as I feel strongly that providing accurate information is imperative especially for the author of a post.

Social Mobility stagnated due to Government trying to protect everyone from themselves-“The rich shouldn’t be allowed to fail, so we’ll bail them out…”
“The poor are victims of circumstance, so we’ll give them welfare…”
“Corporations won’t hire, so we’ll give them subsidies…”

All the while, the Working Class was burdened to extinction by taxes that supported these policies.

You do realize though that what we spend on helping those dirty poor people is less than 2% of the budget? The amount of money we lose by allowing Corporations to not pay taxes on off shore accounts is astronomically more and those corporations are not and would not be starving.

Hopefully you understand that a lot of those global corporations that pay dividends and provide increase to their equity value are integral to the pensions of many of the middle class. If taxes are increased, there is less growth or income available to its shareholders, of which the middle class would also be impacted. That may be a trade off you are willing to make and would definitely impact some more than others, but it would make a current bad situation even worse with unfunded pension liabilities. Alternatively, if taxes go up and the global corp wants to continue to provide the same return to its shareholders, then they could raise prices which also impact a lot of the middle class.

What you have written is reminiscent of the same trickle down argument that has been failing us for several decades now. How about we try it the other way around for once in thirty years?

Boutwell

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I disagree that it is the same trickle down. There are a few main differences…

1. The unfunded pension liabilities which, right or wrong, rely upon investment returns both in capital appreciation and income,
2. The number of middle class households that now are investors compared to 30 years ago. You use $92K to indicate lower middle class above…a lot of them will be investors either directly or indirectly.
3. Corporations are easily able to recapitalize out of the US…unlike citizens which is much more difficult.

BTW, I am not a big corporate subsidy type person…however, once they are started, they are very difficult to stop. I wish they would have never started. Actually, I am not real big on any type of new subsidy. I could possibly get behind something if it was directly measurable to the desired result, but that often is not the case.

You’re confusing me for a Republican, which I’m not. I’m against the Middle Class worker paying everyone else’s way through life. Bailouts, corporate subsidies, and welfare come out of those heavy taxes we pay. Where’s the incentive to work and do honest business when you have so many wonderful social nets?

btw, Taxing the Rich won’t help, that’ll only exasperate off-shoring (think FB co-founder Eduardo Saverin)…. The answer is to End the Federal Reserve Act and allow hard currency vice the paper money we use now. Before 1913, our money would appreciate and gain value year after year, making ALL Americans richer without government intervention. Since 1913, our dollars has lost 98.5% value. In layman terms, Americans who save have 98.5% less money now than they did a century ago due to inflation.

Nobody is going to listen though, because they want a false sense of government security instead of coping with the danger of self-determination.

Please don’t prove Diamond right. I really hate it when people do that.

To be technically correct, the purchasing power of a 1912 $1 bill is exactly $1 in 2013 or 1912. I’d rather have the $23.20 . . . which is worth $23.20.

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM

You’re an Idiot pal. Go to a BANK (or any investor that doesn’t have Down Syndrome) and tell them a 1912 Dollar is the same value as a 2012 Dollar. Let me know how hard they laugh at you.

Ryan Cantor

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Tony Tony Tony . . .

A $1 bill is legal tender in these United States, regardless of the year it’s printed. If I took a $1 bill to the bank and demanded a deposit, I’d get exactly $1 in the bank. Currency’s value doesn’t float based on the year it’s printed.

Welcome to the blog. Good to have some thoughtful discussion.

Any future disparaging comments against individuals with Down Syndrome will be deleted. It’s completely unnecessary and we don’t tolerate that kind of crap around here.

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Here’s a handful of examples of how you’re wrong:

The 1964 Silver Nickel is worth 35 Cents.
The 1944 Jefferson Silver Nickel in good condition is worth up to $21.50
The 1947 Jefferson Nickel is worth between 47 Cents and $3.75
The 1973 Eisenhower Dollar is worth $9.17
The 1960 Franklin Half Dollar is worth $10.37

You’re speaking of FIAT Federal Reserve money. These coins are worth more because they actually contain precious metals and appreciate annually. Big difference.

He doesn’t get the difference between “purchasing power” and “market value.” You’ll have to explain it.

He also doesn’t seem to realize that the 1912 $1 bill doesn’t go “into your bank account.” He may think that it’s like a safe-deposit box.

Pressing “stop.”

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 1:20 PM

You obviously don’t understand the difference between “face value” and “melt value”. If I melt a 90% silver 10% copper 1960 Franklin Half Dollar, I can sell the precious metals on the market and fetch up to $10.37 as of today.

If I melt a Federal Reserve quarter, it’s worth 0.047 on the market. Do you fathom where this argument is going?

Genious-All “commercial banks” are forbidden to exchange anything but Federal Reserve notes. If precious metals aren’t such a threat to Big Banks, why do they arrest people that use metals as alternative currency?

btw, Greg didn’t prove me wrong on anything.

Ryan Cantor

Posted March 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM

OK, this is gonna be my last one on the thread.

1) It’s illegal to melt currency.

2) THE WHOLE FREAKIN POINT OF THIS EXCHANGE IS THAT YOU’RE MIXING UP THE TWO TERMS.

3) Banks are free to exchange promissory notes to customers or to each other. Most transactions do not involve actual federal reserve notes.

4) “They”, who at this point I can only assume means men in black suits traveling in black silent helicopters, don’t arrest people for bartering. The IRS or a state franchise tax board might get pissed at you for avoiding taxes.

5) Of course Greg didn’t prove you wrong. He wasn’t arguing anything with you. You, on the other hand, did a fantastic job of proving him right. I beg you, please . . . please please please stop. He’ll never let me hear the end of it.

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Go to Cuba Comrade, being surrounded by successful people is too much for you to take.

Everything you mentioned is all a part of the Federal Reserve Act which I’m against. You’ve told me NOTHING new. I show stats and evidence you take the typical Democrat path and pout.

To answer your question, it’s inflation hurting the worker more than rich people being “successful.”

Actually what exacerbates off shoring is that every ten years or so corporations want to bring back all that money from off shore and lobby and push campaigns that they be allowed to return that money at a 3%. Which is equivalent to me making a bunch of money for ten years not paying any taxes and saying “well if you let me spend my money in the country I guess I’ll pay less than half the taxes that poor people pay”.

One guy left the U.S. good for him, the reality is this is their home and most of them want to live here without paying their fair share of taxes. The reality is those people are not using their tremendous wealth to consume a bunch more products than you and me and then trickling it down to the rest of us. An extremely large percentage of their money is reinvested into assets in which they just make more and more money.

If the US taxed corporations on its world wide income, I feel that there would be a flee from US domicile. It is much easier to move a corporate HQ than it is for a family to give up citizenship. They can even still be traded on the US markets. These corporations pay foreign taxes on that foreign profit earned in the foreign country…it is earned elsewhere and taxes are paid elsewhere- just often at a lower tax rate than here in the US. When you say that they don’t pay any taxes, you would likely not be correct…they would pay no US income taxes, but they are paying taxes in the country where it is earned.

If the US taxed corporations on its world wide income, we would be one of the only, if not the only, country to do that. We are already in that situation with our individual citizens.

I personally would much rather see a repatriation of foreign profits tax holiday that is meant to create US jobs and rewards for such achievement. Past tax holidays often are passed through to shareholders, which is not all that bad IMO but maybe not the best. I say that it is not all that bad because individuals pay tax on that income (albeit possibly 20% to 23.9% in 2013) although pensions would not but it sure helps unfunded pension liabilities. Here are my thoughts:

Offer a 15% tax rate on US company’s foreign profits that are currently held outside of the country (i.e. never been taxed inside by the US) and possibly may never come back unless there is an incentive to do so.

Further, offer a tax credit to those corporations which repatriate which would bring their tax rate down to 10%. The credit would be calculated based upon the number of full time employees that are hired at above above $15/hour. Remember, this is “found money” in that this is money that likely would never come back to the US because it is housed in foreign corporations…which will generally pay tax in the jurisdiction that the income is earned.

Further, offer a tax credit to those corporations for another 5% for US investment, so that the lowest rate would be 5%. The types of US investment that I am referring to would be new factories coupled with new jobs.

The amount of money these corporations are making in the U.S. is easily in the millions. You want to tax them like they are poor? I don’t think jobs are enough, good jobs. Wages are stagnant and the economy is not going to improve until we stop begging millionaires for jobs whose wages don’t even keep up with inflation.

Every time we bail them out, or let them repatriate (for one they want 3% which is a slap in the face to every citizen who pays taxes) they just give themselves bonuses. You can’t do anything to them because they are “too big to fail”. This is a massive problem and my personal opinion is that it is indicative of a massive failure of the government to check these corporations with anti trust laws.

The fact is many of these corporations own some small building in some tiny Island that isn’t making them any money. Most of them are making the bulk of their money right here in the U.S. No one in the world has bigger culture of consumption. Allowing them to do that is an admission that the rules are different for the extremely wealthy than they are for the ordinary citizen.

Whatever happened to good old competition Capitalism? When did we lose faith in the free market system by tainting it with subsidies and exceptions? When did we decide that it’s okay for some people not to pay their taxes.

They aren’t making billions of dollars in Ireland or Bermuda they are just reporting it that way. The government needs to get tough on big business and the people need to get tough on conflicts of interest from the financial sector and Washington.

Boutwell

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Joey…mulit-national global corporations are making BILLIONS of dollars making and selling things overseas. They pay tax in those local jurisdictions. I don’t want to tax them like they are poor…they are paying taxes in the countries that they make the money. Yes, there are some deductions taken in the US to support the overseas operations, which many would consider a loophole and could be changed, but they are still paying taxes overseas. The bulk of large multi-national companies is not actually made here in the US–it is overseas. That is where the growth has been for many companies and that is also where they have been deploying resources.

I also want good jobs which is why I think that some variation of repatriation tax with incentives for good jobs (I put $15/hr as my minimum but I am fine with higher too) as I indicate above is good for the country.

If you truly want good ole competition, you would tax our companies and citizens in a similiar manner, from an income base persepctive, which is to tax based upon where it is earned and not upon citizenship.

“When did we decide that it’s okay for some people not to pay their taxes.” I am not sure when it happened, but if you are referring to the 40%+ of American citizens who don’t pay federal income taxes, I think Romney had a comment or two about them.

I especially look forward to your response on the very first thread way up above where you provide us some fuzzy math with taxes on raises…

Withing your retort you even mention that ordinary citizens are taxes on their worldwide income but corporations are not. That’s just another slap in the face to the American working man and not a valid point. These corporations have more money than anyone, how is it they need the most breaks?

Boutwell

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Taxing corporations only based upon their US source income and foreign income that is repatriated to the US is an attempt by the US for multi-national corporations to be competitive on the world wide market from a tax perspective. Some pretty smart people know how easy it is to recapitalize a company in another country and simply have them pay tax there instead of having any tie into the US. The spin-off consulting industry would take off. Unlike individuals, it is not hard to have foreign domicile for corporations. Essentially, be careful for what you wish for as it may come true.

I would be 100% in favor of taxing individuals in a similiar manner which is what 99.9% of the rest of the world does…they tax based upon where income is earned not on where you were born. Unfortunately that means we have to raise revenue elsewhere but so be it.

Bro, we live in an era where our tax money is going towards BS like Wall St bail-outs, Corporate subsidies, and drone programs that kill innocent people overseas. Obama just gave Egypt $450 MILLION to support a corrupt dictator, that’s your Tax Money!

Yet our infrastructure is rotting. Why the fuck would anyone want to pay into that? How about let everyone keep their earnings and invest in themselves.

btw, We’re not generating enough tax revenue to pay for the Nanny State, that’s why we’re borrowing so much money from China.

If the ant-trust issues I mentioned were fought, if we made the market place competitive again. If we held politicians responsible for conflicts of interest and insider trading then we could do something good with that tax money. We can’t give up and we can’t allow lesser evil policies that widen the disparity between the poor and the rich.

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I’m glad you said that Joey!

What made JP Morgan, Chase, Monsanto, GE, the monsters they are today? It was Government subsidy. Each one of these Corporations used legislation to stomp out competition and become bloated. Government did this, not the Free Market.

What made that subsidy possible? Your tax money. People have to get away form the myth that paying taxes makes life better. Keeping your money and you spending it wisely makes your life better. How much did you pay last year, and how could it have helped your life could you been allowed to keep all the money you paid?

*A tax without write-offs is not tax at all – it is theivery! No FAT Tax…..NO VAT tax….NO Cap & Trades for Energy and Chemical Companies, NO Oil Depletion Allowances, NO Farm Subsidies for Big Agra, NO Tax write-offs for Big Pharma Television Advertising, NO Un-negotiated Pharmaceutical Pricing for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

It kind of goes along like that for a while. Oh, and don’t forget: Send a job or a dollar out of this country through investment or banking and pay a 25% penalty.

Ah…..never mind…….they are already putting knives back on planes….who knows maybe they will allow smoking on planes soon too?

*Forgot to answer the question: A Flat Tax starts at 15%, goes up 1% a year for 20 years. Doesn’t allow any write-offs except for Corporate America, because Lord knows the march of world Capitalism/Communism shall not be thwarted. Remember what is says on our currency: New World Order……not ONE World Order.

If the IRS taxed 100% of all income over $1 Million, the take would be just $616 Billion. Your Government spent 3.3 TRILLION last year. That’s enough to get us through a quarter year. Who are you going to tax then?

The marriage of government and the private sector was the implication the entire time. Your straw man argument sounds something like “by doing this ridiculous thing you never at any point suggested, we could still not solve the problem that we created in a decade in the time span of a quarter year so instead lets not do anything”. Correcting tax laws to make them fair is one part of the problem.

Not declaring a bunch of failed wars for people like Dick Cheney to profit off of would be another part.

I don’t think cutting education is a wise place to make cuts. I think the war is a great place to start. I think there are probably many places where cuts could be made. I also think higher taxes in higher brackets could be part of the solution.

Tony Velloza

Posted March 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The only time we’ve been debt free is when Andrew Jackson ended the Central Banks in 1836. We should do likewise and End the Fed because our currency is based on Debt. (Important note: Income tax was instituted in the Federal Reserve act)

I agree with ending all wars. We should also end all corporate subsidies and allow welfare and education to be decided by the states. I would argue against the taxes being raised but let’s just agree to disagree.

-Subsidized housing that favors criminals getting a “second chance”
-Restaurants that accept SNAP/Food Stamps
-Subsidized General hospitals where you wait 6 hours in the waiting room
-High Tax Rates for the greedy Rich
-Equal opportunity that punishes evil White People

Take your families and move there and I guarantee you would be BEGGING to move back to the safe confines of Orange County. Nobody votes for you because you’re trying to turn this place into a 3rd World dump.

If we could simply return to a legal, limited republic, that is spelled out in the Constitution and NOT the bloated pile of crap we have now, nearly all of this discussion would be moot. Fact of the matter is we have the huge bill to pay because everyone has their hand out to take whatever they can get. It’s simply not supposed to be this way.

*Carl…..sadly sir….the days of one on one horse trading are over. We now have Investment banks and institutions trading $4 Trillion dollars a day across the Global borders instantaneously. In micro seconds our world and fortunes can change. All our communications are monitored, evaluated and put into various categories for future action. Honesty in Business is no longer taught. Lies and misrepresentations are modern day effects of “What I didn’t learn at the Harvard Business School”…..books, novels and web sites. People like: Lindsay Lohan, Jody Arias, Casey Anthony, Foxy Knoxy, George Zimmerman and even Donald Trump…….lead the field of frustrations for most folks. Eventually, we will will not be able to hold back the giant leaps of what they call the ‘Singularity”….created by futurist Ray Kurzweil. All brain waves will be monitored, all heart beats monitored and all transportation vehicles controlled by a single computer source. Guess it all goes to show……that we are all here just as long as we keep the “gatekeepers and monitors” ….entertained.